A University of Sussex EdD thesis
Available online via Sussex Research Online:
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/
This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author.
This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the aut
hor, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given
THE CLASS AS A GROUP
Theoretical and pedagogical
implications of groupwork in the
classroom
Hiltje Johanna Baar-Kooij
Doctorate in Education
University of Sussex
October, 2019
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree.
Signature:
Siben
Your love will carry…….
This thesis would not have been completed without the encouragement, understanding and support of my children Maikel, Rutger and Selinde, my mother and my partner Max. Their belief in my endeavour spurred me to keep on walking this path full of unanticipated obstacles and turns.
I owe many thanks to my supervisors, Dr Nigel Marshall and Dr Julia Sutherland, for their patience, constant support, discussions and guidance throughout the writing of this thesis. I also thank the teachers participating in this study for trusting me with their class, for sharing their time and honest thoughts and feelings with me, and their contribution in developing a diagnostic model, evaluation model and a list of teacher skills and knowledge in understanding groups in education.
To the pupils that took part in this study, I also owe my gratitude. I have learned so much of you! Without your critical comments and feedback, this study would be without the opinion of the real experts on groups.
ABSTRACT
The purposes of this study were to investigate 1) the perceived discrepancy between the social skills outcomes in the pupil-monitoring system and what is experienced by teachers, pupils or parents in the classroom, 2) to understand the role of the group on behaviours experienced by teachers as difficult or problematic, 3) to investigate what understandings teachers have of the concept of group in education, and 4) to assess the effectiveness of groupwork interventions in the classroom.
Over a period of 3 academic years, four groups in four different mainstream primary schools in the Netherlands were investigated. Each group experienced similar problems even though their size, location, ethnicity, socio-economic background of the parents or the composition of the group differed. All groups participated in this study for the duration of 5 till 12 weeks, to investigate whether using groupwork skills and knowledge would affect the problems related to the social behaviour they experienced in the classroom.
The approach included modelling groupwork skills and involving the group in the problem-solving process, using the experiential learning cycle for the pupils and the action-research cycle for their teachers. It also involved collaborative evaluation. Examples are pupils and teacher(s) reflecting together on their progress after each intervention, or between me and the teachers in reviewing data and emerging findings. The main data were derived from qualitative micro analysis of the videos that were made throughout this study, and are supported by direct observations of the activities, logbooks and statements made by pupils and teachers, and emails.
The study concludes that three factors, namely approaching a class as a group, involving the group in the problem-solving process, and using groupwork skills and techniques in group discussions, contribute to the aspirations of the teachers, the pupils and their parents, the school, and in the end to reaching the attainment targets for the social obligation of education. Being able to share thoughts, feelings and emotions about real, actual problems and conflicts in the ‘here-and-now’ enabled pupils to develop ways of thinking and talking, essential for gaining problem-solving skills and dealing with differences of opinion.
Teachers need to appreciate that children’s thinking and reasoning differ from adults’. Therefore, teachers have to learn new skills in facilitating the development of their pupils’ social skills as opposed to teaching what is socially expected of them. Gaining knowledge about group dynamics and group development would benefit teachers in the classroom not only in
reaching their attainment targets for social skills education, but also in dealing with behaviours in the classroom they experience as being difficult.
Furthermore, this study concludes that the currently deployed tools for measuring the outcomes of the social skills education do not sufficiently capture what needs to be assessed due for example to assumptions about language and interpretations, the discrepancy between internalized and integrated behaviours, or the impact of pupils’ paralinguistic language on others.
Keywords: social obligation of (primary) education, groupwork, teacher training, action research, experiential learning, citizenship.
GLOSSARY
Since this study was conducted in the Netherlands, this glossary supplies a list of terms with accompanying definitions and/or translations used in Dutch education.
Cito (Centraal Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling) – National Institute for Educational Measurement
Cotan ( Commissie Testaangelegenheden Nederland) – Commission for Test matters of the Dutch Institute of Psychologists that promotes the quality of tests and the use of tests in the Netherlands
Effectieve Instructie – the goals, instruction and content of the lessons are adjusted to the different educational needs of the pupils (translated as: effective transfer of knowledge) Handelingsgericht Werken (HGW) – a systematic approach in which the educational offer is adjusted to the educational and basic needs of the pupils. Based on the so called child characteristics, the educational needs of the child are established (translated as: Action Orientated Approach).
Handelingsgerichte Proces Diagnostiek (HGPD) – an approach in which diagnostics and approach go hand in hand
Inspectie van het Onderwijs – Education Inspectorate
Kwaliteitsborging – the school and the inspectorate control if the set targets are met and analyse what could be improved or what targets can be raised (translated as: quality surveillance).
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap (Min. OCW) – Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Nederlands Jeugd Instituut (NJI) – Dutch Institute for youth
Onderwijsraad – Education Council
Opbrengst gericht werken – schools and teachers take a systematic approach in increasing the educational achievements of the pupils through setting high goals, evaluating their plans and analysing the effects of their teaching (translated as: revenue-focussed working).
Primary Education – education of children in the age of 4 till 12 (group 1 – group 8)
Regionale Expertise Centra (REC) – consortiums of special schools and secondary special schools within a district (translated as: Regional Expertise Centres).
Rijksoverheid – central / national government
Samenwerkingsorgaan Beroepskwaliteit Leraren (SBL) – Cooperation body Professional quality Teachers
Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling (SLO) – National Institute for Curriculum Development
WEC raad – organisation that represents the interests of special education
Wet op het basisonderwijs – Primary Education Act
Weer Samen Naar School (WSNS) – Together to School Again. - Schools for children with learning and behavioural difficulties (LOM), children with learning difficulties (MLK) and
preschool children with developmental difficulties (IOBK) were merged into a school for special primary education (SBO). This process was named Weer Samen Naar School, and got its legal foundation in the Primary Education Act of 1998.
Zorgplicht – Schools have to present the best possible educational offer to all pupils that enrol. If a school is not able to provide the special needs an individual child requires, then the parents have to be helped in finding an educational place that suits the child more effectively. The parents and the school are required to work together in finding such a place. In order to assist the child as much as possible, teachers need sufficient knowledge of dealing with differences and have to be aware when they need the help of other professionals. Schools cooperate with other schools at a regional level and with youth care, social work, local police, district nurses, speech therapists and all other professionals possibly involved in the life of the child.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ……….….. i
Acknowledgment ………. ii
Abstract ……….... iii
Glossary ………. v
Table of contents ……… vii
List of appendices ……….. x
List of tables ……….. xi
List of figures ………. xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ………. 1
Preface ……….. 1
1.1 Personal professional situation and motivation related to the subject…………. 3
1.2 Context ……….. 5
1.3 Legislations in the Netherlands: group vs individual ………. 7
1.4 Aims and context of his research………. 9
1.4.1 Research design and research questions ……….. 10
1.4.2 Profile of the participating groups ………. 11
1.5 Summary ……….. 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……… 13
2.1 Learning versus teaching ………. 15
2.2 School, society and social skills ……….. 16
2.3 The social obligation of education ……… 19
2.4 What motivates children to change their behaviour……… 21
2.5 Would a primary school class in the Netherlands count as a group?... 22
2.6 Possible causes of difficult behaviour ……… 24
2.6.1 Roles ……….. 25
2.6.2 Group development ……… 26
2.7 Planning a group ……….. 29
2.8 Needs ………. 31
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN ……….. 34
3.1 Methodological Approach ……….. 34
3.2 Positionality …..……… 36
3.3 Action Research ………. 38
3.3.1 Validity and trustworthiness ………. 48
3.4 Ethical considerations ……… 49
3.4.1 Participants ……….. 49
3.4.2 The use of video ……… 51
3.5 Overview of AR Model and Timeline with Methods of Data Collection ……… 52
3.6 Data Sources ……… 56
3.6.1 Video ………. 56
3.6.2 Direct unstructured observations during interventions ……… 57
3.6.3 Open interviews ……… 57
3.6.4 Statements and group discussions ……….. 58
3.6.5 Emails ……… 58
3.6.6 Field notes ………. 59
3.7 Methods of Data Analysis ……….. 59
3.8 Methods of Analysing the entire data-set ……….. 62
3.9 Limitations of the design ……….. 65
3.10 Summary ………. 66
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION ……….. 67
4.1 Phase 1: Data Analysis Reconnaissance Stage……… 67
4.1.1 Initial interviews with teacher or head teacher………. 67
4.1.2 First interaction with the group………. 70
4.1.3 Statements and group discussions……….. 74
4.2 Phase 2: Data Analysis EL and AR cycles……….. 78
4.2.1 Theme one: Group Dynamics and Group Development……….. 78
4.2.2 Theme two: Social Skills education………. 90
4.2.3 Theme three: Assessment of pupils’ social skills……….. 92
4.2.4 Theme four: Language and definitions………. 93
4.2.5 Theme five: Emotions and feelings………. 95
4.2.6 Theme six: Non-verbal language……….. 100
4.2.7 Theme seven: Relationship school and parents………. 103
4.2.8 Theme eight: Assumption about cultural differences (equal opportunities and doing justice to all)………. 107
4.2.9 Theme nine: Assumptions about Learning and the Teacher’ Role in a Classroom Group ……… 113
4.3 Summary……… 117
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ……….. 118
5.1 To what extent can the discrepancy between the outcomes of the pupil monitoring system and what is experienced by teachers, pupils or parents be explained by the concept of ‘group’ in education?... 118
5.2 In what ways can engaging with the class as a group affect the problems
related to social behaviour teachers currently experience?... 120
5.2.1 Student led solutions ………. 122
5.2.2 Confronting problems ……… 122
5.2.3 Mutual aid ………. 123
5.3 What knowledge, skills, attitudes and habits do teachers need to acquire in order to engage with their class as a group?... 123
5.4 In what ways can a different concept of “group” contribute to the educational- and social outcomes specified in the core objectives?... 126
CHAPTER SIX: CONLUSIONS ……….. 129
6.1 Limitations ……….……….. 129
6.2 Contribution to knowledge……….. 131
6.2.1 Teacher knowledge and practice ……… 131
6.2.2 Assessment of social skills and current policy ……… 133
6.2.3 Research methods ………. 133
6.3 Action ………. 134
6.4 Recommendations for further research ………. 135
6.5 The value of Action Research……….. 136
6.6 The value of Experiential Learning……….. 137
6.7 My learning journey……….. 137
6.8 Implications of this study for policy and practice ……… 138
6.8.1 Adequate Education ……… 139
6.8.2 Assessment of social skills ……….. 140
6.8.3 Parents and school ….………. 141
6.8.4 Planning ……….. 141
6.9 Summary ……… 142
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……… 144
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Dutch educational system ………. 157
APPENDIX B: Planning components… ……… 159
APPENDIX C: Diagnostic model ……….. 162
APPENDIX D: Observation and evaluation plan….……….. 165
APPENDIX E: Translated example of interview ……… 166
APPENDIX F: Initial template ..………. 169
APPENDIX G: Final template ………. 170
APPENDIX H: Intervention activities ……… 172
APPENDIX I: Special group plan school D ……… 174
APPENDIX J: 5th EL cycle school A – Critical incident ……….. 180
APPENDIX K: 7th EL cycle school A – Critical incident ………. 188
APPENDIX L: The Labyrinth ……… 192
APPENDIX M: Example of pupil self-report questionnaire ……….. 193
APPENDIX N: Example of teacher assessment form ……… 195
APPENDIX O: 9th EL cycle school B – Critical incident ……….. 196
APPENDIX P: Teacher perceptions of knowledge and understandings needed ……….. 200
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: first AR cycle school A………. 46
Table 2: Timeline and Methods of Data Collection………. 54
Table 3: Timeline and interventions School B – D……… 55
Table 4: Example of Observation Form………. 60
Table 5: Example of Framework……… 61
Table 6: Axial Coding………. 64
Table 7: Initial template based on initial interviews……… 69
Table 8: Problems according to the group………. 74
Table 9: Aspirations of group and teacher………. 75
Table 10: Probable causes for problems according to the group……….. 76
Table 11: Group Developmental Stages based on interviews……….. 80
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Action Research Models ……… 40
Figure 2: Implementation of the different AR models………. 43
Figure 3: combined AR-cycle school A-D……….. 47
Figure 4: Reflective Log entry 19-04-2013 ………. 64
Figure 5: Reflective Log entry School A, 25-04-2013 ……….. 70
Figure 6: Video analysis school A 25-04-2013 ……… 71
Figure 7: Reflective Log entry 25-04-2013 ………. 72
Figure 8: Video analysis school A 25-04-2013 ……… 73
Figure 9: Video Analysis school D 16-04-2015 ……….. 84
Figure 10: Video Analysis school D 09-04-2015 ……… 86
Figure 11: Reflective Log entry school D 09-04-2015 ………. 87
Figure 12: Video Analysis school C 16-01-2014 ……… 91
Figure 13: Reflective Log School C 16-01-2014 ………. 92
Figure 14: Parent’s email to head teacher ……… 96
Figure 15: Coordinator’s reaction to parents ………. 96
Figure 16: Statement Leanne ………. 97
Figure 17: Statement Bianca ……….. 97
Figure 18: Reflective Log entry School D 08-04-2015 ………... 101
Figure 19: Video analysis school C 16-01-2014 ………. 102
Figure 20: Video analysis school D 09-04-2015 ……… 102
Figure 21: Reflective Log entree School C 25-02-2014 ……… 105
Figure 22: Reflective Log entree School D 19-05-2015 ……… 106
Figure 23: Video analysis school D 23-04-2015 ……… 110
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Preface
All education is groupwork. Education of children and adults, education in families and schools never deals with the individual on the one hand and the subject to be taught on the other (Lewin, 1943:115).
The notion of group, in relation to my own professional practice in primary education in the Netherlands, forms the context of this research. At present in the majority of Dutch primary schools, children are educated in groups and since the Primary Education Act of 1985, a class or form in primary education in the Netherlands is called ‘a group’. Teachers strive to broadly educate all the children in their group but sometimes the group, or an individual in the group, does not cooperate. Teachers experience and interpret this as either having ‘a difficult group’ or as ‘difficult behaviour’ (ten Brink, 2002:13; van Overveld, 2016).
According to de Boer et al., (2002) and van Overveld (2016), teachers in the Netherlands increasingly report problems with teaching groups they experience as being difficult or they see the behaviours of individual pupils in the group as being problematic. Teachers tend to describe these behaviours as being, for example, annoying, secretive, impudent, attention seeking, verbally aggressive, interacting with each other negatively or being lazy (Miedema, 2002), and in the past decade, bullying, threatening, ignoring, excluding, and cyberbullying have been added to the list of complaints (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2014a).
According to Kuhlemeier et al. (2012), in everyday practice teachers and pupils have to deal with problematic behaviours to a greater or lesser extent, making teaching more complex or in some cases, even impossible. In my own professional situation I also see more and more teachers struggling with their groups and I notice how they often spend a considerable part of their time and energy in guiding ‘difficult’ or otherwise problematic pupils.
In response to this development many social skills programmes, anti-bullying campaigns and social skills course books have entered the educational field (Baar et al., 2007; Nederlands Jeugdinstituut, NJI, 2013; Rijksoverheid, 2013). Since 2007, almost one third of the primary schools in the Netherlands, including the schools in my professional context, have used the social skills programme ‘Kanjer training’ (Tiger method) to teach children social and emotional skills (preventive) and to reduce bullying (curative) (www.kanjertraining.nl, 2013). Twice a year
the results of the training are measured through online questionnaires in which the pupils reflect on their own behaviour and how they perceive themselves as being accepted into the group. Recently this questionnaire has been positively reviewed by the Cotan1 and as of August 2014, the Education Inspectorate deployed the questionnaire as a tool for measuring social development (www.Kanjertraining.nl, 2013).
The outcomes of these questionnaires highlighted some positive results of the training, including pupils feeling more socially accepted, and having less depressive or aggressive feelings (Vliek et al., 2011), and in the most recent report (2019:67), the Education
Inspectorate writes that 97% of the pupils feels safe in school. Research commissioned by the Ministry of OCW (2012) required pupils to complete questionnaires in which they were asked how they perceived their own social skills, and teachers completed questionnaires about their judgment of the social competencies of the pupils. Findings seemed to confirm that the social functioning of the majority of pupils in the last year of primary education gave no particular reason for concern (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012:303). However, this result does not mean that problems do not exist and a small number of pupils exhibit behaviour which is experienced in that context as problematic and need additional attention, support and counselling (ibid). In spite of this predominantly positive report, teachers increasingly describe having problems with teaching groups they experience as ‘difficult’ (ten Brink, 2002; van Engelen, 2014; van Overveld, 2016), reporting a discrepancy between the outcomes of these questionnaires and what they experience in everyday practice. They struggle with ‘difficult groups’ or ‘disruptive behaviour of individual pupils in the group’, and individual children still complain about bullying. This raises the question about whether social skills and citizenship are being taught in a meaningful, experiential way, useful in the here and now, or as preparation for a test. Ten Dam (2001) argues that improvement of social competence can be achieved only in a limited way, as long as social skills are taught in discrete lessons, rather than being enacted across the curriculum. For example, where pupils make statements about respecting different opinions or finding peaceful solutions for a problem, but then do exactly the opposite outside the
classroom, as I frequently witness. There seems to be relatively limited transfer between what is learned in class and how this should be practised in real life.
This sets the context for this study, which seeks not only to find a possible explanation for the perceived discrepancy between test results and what teachers experience in practice, but also
to investigate teachers’ understanding of the concept of the ‘group’ in education, in relation to pupils’ social skills.
1.1 Professional situation and motivation related to the subject
As an educational professional with a fascination for groups, in this research I want to explore and more deeply understand, what exactly a group in education is. Also, I want to understand how education professionals engage with groups; and which behaviours in their groups they experience as being difficult, identifying how this differs from how professionals in social groupwork, for example social workers in schools, health care or prisons, engage with their groups.
At the time of writing I am a professional in (primary) education, having worked in the Netherlands for over 30 years. I have worked as a teacher in both mainstream and special education and during this time, I have experienced many changes in educational policy, which have affected the composition and the needs of the class; one consequence being the
emergence of behaviours in the group that teachers experience as difficult. Meanwhile I have gained knowledge through study and experience in different systems, different roles and different tasks as will be subsequently explained.
After Teacher Training College I began to work in a mainstream elementary school (6 – 12 year olds). During this time, theories on experiential learning (Dewey, 1915, Piaget, 1932); on the role of talk in mediating learning (Vygotsky, 1978); on the importance of meaningful learning and the relatively unimportant role of the teacher in the learning process of young children (Rogers, 1979), greatly influenced Dutch education. This resulted in more attention being paid to the individual differences between children, more active involvement of pupils in the learning process (Berding & Pols, 2014) and expansion of elementary schools with a special orientation such as Montessori, Parkhurst or Petersen (Boekholt & de Booy, 1987). However, in 1986 the Dutch inspectorate noted that the approach taken by the majority of elementary schools was predominantly whole-class, from an organisational as well as an educational perspective (Braster, 2011). This was the pedagogical approach expected when I entered the professional field in 1982.
In 1985 the ‘Wet op het Basisonderwijs’ (The Primary Education Act, 1985) came into force. Elementary and nursery schools merged into primary schools, where children from 4 to 12 years experienced ‘a continuous development process’ (Berding & Pols, 2014). The rationale
for this Act was equal opportunities for all, and a focus on individual development, but it was also intended to reduce the referral rate to special schools (ibid). Primary education became more focussed on the developmental stage of the child and worked in a more heterogeneous way. A side-effect of offering all children equal opportunities was the increased demands made of the new primary schools, such as expanding their special needs provision and greater accountability (Berding & Pols, 2014). However, contrary to expectation, pupil referral rates to special schools have continued to increase (Smeets, 2007).
Dissatisfied with seemingly being unable to teach children with special needs in a mainstream setting, in 1986, I transferred to special education. Here, I learned to understand and interpret different behaviours from a new perspective. I experienced how learning difficulties resulted in behaviour problems and most of all, I learned how the group can offer children protection and mutual aid. A drive towards inclusion (Weer Samen Naar School, 19982) and cost-cutting closed many special schools so I later returned to mainstream primary education as a Dutch second language teacher for refugee children. Diversity afforded me a new personal perspective on ‘groupness’ in education and society. The children taught me about assumptions in
interpreting behaviour from different cultural perspectives. Although house visits were no longer common practice, I experienced again the importance of close communication with parents. Eager to understand what happens in groups and dissatisfied with the educational solution of labelling pupils, in 2009 I joined the IASWG (the International Association for Social Work with Groups), where I learned the theory behind what I already had sensed in practice, but could not yet explain: how the behaviour of an individual relates to groups.
Currently, my job is to assist children in a mainstream school, identified as having special educational needs (SEN), and to advise teachers on achieving their set targets. In this role I receive many questions about how to deal with the behaviour of these children in the group or the effects of their behaviour on the dynamics of the group. These requests are typically substantiated by a list of each child with all their individual needs. Teachers, in my experience, are increasingly able to take the individual needs of their pupils into consideration when planning their education in their group plan. That, however, is not the same as planning their group as will be explained subsequently.
1.2 Context
What children need to learn in primary education is written down in core objectives, describing the desired outcomes of a learning process, but schools can choose their own pedagogy (Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling, SLO, 2006). The Dutch government has also declared its ambition to become a leading, knowledge-based economy (Min. OCW., 2011a) and advocates: ‘Revenue-focussed working’ (schools and teachers should take a systematic approach to increasing pupils’ educational achievements through setting high goals and evaluating the impact of their teaching, SLO, 2010).Teachers must also achieve ‘Effective transfer of knowledge’ (ibid: they must adjust their goals, instruction and content of the lessons to the different educational needs of their pupils, so no time is wasted); and accept ‘Quality surveillance’ (the school and inspectorate control whether the set targets are met and analyse what could be improved, or change the targets for the next period, ibid).
Improvement of education, according to the Dutch government, equals increasing teachers’ skills and knowledge in order to increase pupils’ educational achievements, their cognitive results (Min. OCW., 2011a:20). That is, results which can be measured and compared (Biesta, 2009). In this vein, like Biesta (2009), I wonder if we are measuring what we value or end up valuing what we can measure since education also has the obligation to prepare children for participation in society (SLO, 2006), and this demands a more holistic view on education than just high test scores on a cognitive level. According to the core objectives set by the
Government, primary education also has the obligation to teach pupils ‘personal and world orientation’. In this learning area, “pupils orientate on themselves, on how people relate to each other, how they solve problems, and how they give meaning to their existence” (SLO, 2006:47). The question is not only whether it is possible to measure and compare pupils’ achievements in this domain, but also if better teaching will increase pupils’ performance. In order to become a knowledge-based economy, pupils’ achievements must increase and therefore the purported ‘quality’ of the teachers. Consequently, many resources are invested in training teachers to become ‘effective instructors’ (Min. OCW., 2011a). Yet, in spite of the fact that more and more teachers are apparently now able to instruct effectively, the achievements of pupils do not always increase, as anticipated. Dijkstra & Janssens (2012) suggest three possible causes for this. First, there is a gap in knowledge about interpreting test results and the consequences for education. Second, there is a lack of ambition amongst school leaders and teachers for achievement-oriented education, and third, teachers and schools tend to blame the pupils or their parents for the disappointing results. Based on my
professional experience, I can agree with the first possible cause identified by Dijksta & Janssens (2012) and hence agree to a certain extent with the government’s initiative to improve the quality of teachers’ training. However, a child is not just a performance unit and therefore there is more than just comprehending instructions that might affect test results. Home situation and personal circumstances are also important influential factors on the educational performance of pupils. This relates to the third argument of Dijkstra & Janssens (2012) as well as to de Winters’ (2010) perceptive argument: at present parents and teachers are no longer partners in raising children, and blame each other for failing results. Related to the second argument, both teachers and parents want their children to achieve well in school. The problem is that they both see different aspects of the same child and, instead of being partners, parents and teachers are on opposite sides of the ‘wall’ that has been erected between parents and school (de Winter, 2010).
Although in general, it may be a relatively small group of pupils that exhibit problematic behaviours (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012), dealing with oppositional behaviour or an unfriendly atmosphere can not only take time, at the expense of ‘effective learning time’, but also impact on the educational outcomes (ibid) so this is an important context in understanding why pupil achievements are not increasing.
When researching the quality of education, the focus is usually on the cognitive development of pupils (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012) as with the above Government focus (Min. OCW., 2011a). Education, however, also has the obligation to advance pupils’ social development. What children must learn in this domain is written in the preliminary statement of the core objectives (SLO, 2006). Schools must contribute to the advancement of pupils’ social
competencies, social integration and active citizenship (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012). An increase in the number of children with learning and behaviour problems, the increasing individualisation of the society and the disappearance of traditional norms and values, were the reasons for the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science considering the social competences of children in primary education (Ten Dam & Volman, 1999). They commissioned the Central Institute for Test Development (CITO) to research children’s social and emotional development during their final year of primary education. The aspects of social and emotional development were divided into three domains: social competence, citizenship and moral development. The research, carried out in 111 primary schools, involved testing different aspects of the
educational outcomes of social competences through pupil questionnaires and self-reports, observation lists filled out by teachers and ‘scenario interviews’ (‘How would you react if….’) with pupils.
This research (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012) noted that the social functioning of the majority of the pupils was unproblematic. However, a relatively small group displayed problematic
behaviours, including hyperactivity, excessive behaviour, blaming others, justifying excessive behaviour and lack of empathy (ibid). These findings were echoed in the Inspectorate
Education Report (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2019:67) which reported that 18% of pupils in Dutch primary education had to deal with (verbal) abuse, and one in ten pupils indicated being bullied.
Additionally, in 2018-2019, the inspector responsible for handling complaints about (sexual) harassment and discrimination reported an increase of reports of nearly 40% compared to 2016-2017. Worthy of note is the remark in the report (ibid:68): “Contacts with reporters indicate that protracted cases of bullying that have not been properly resolved by the school, can sometimes result in physical violence, such as fights”. These outcomes seem to confirm teachers’ feelings and experiences that it is the behaviour of one pupil, a small group or the collective impact of these behaviours on the group that cause problems (van Overveld, 2016). Groups are more than a collection of individuals who accidently enter the school in the same year, ending up in the same classroom, that is, more than the sum of their parts. Groups are a fundamental part of life and are dynamic wholes (Smith, 2018). A group is a collection of individuals who interact with one another and therefore become interdependent to some degree (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). In other words, teachers not only have to deal with individuals, and their own learning needs, but also with the dynamics within the group in their classroom. Teachers are trained to work with groups of children, but this does not necessarily involve working with groups. A group, however, can be very powerful, and for many teachers, a very challenging entity. Teachers having theoretical and pedagogical knowledge about groups, group dynamics and group processes, is an important condition for an effective education, but in the Netherlands, this is not regarded as an important subject in teacher training courses (Luitjes & de Zeeuw-Jans, 2017; Miedema, 2002).
1.3 Legislation in the Netherlands: group versus individual
WSNS (‘Together to School Again’) was the first step towards ‘de Wet Passend Onderwijs’ (the Adequate Education Act) that came into force in 2014. ‘Adequate Education’ is a system that aims to present all children with an adequate educational experience (Min. OCW., 2011b). This
requires schools to have a so-called ‘Duty of Care’, providing the best possible educational experience to all pupils. If a school is not able to manage an individual child’s special needs, then the parents and school are required to work together to find appropriate alternative provision. In order to assist the child as much as possible, teachers need sufficient knowledge of dealing with differences and must be aware when they need the help of other professionals. Schools cooperate with other schools at a regional level and youth care, social work, local police, district nurses, speech therapists and other appropriate professionals can be included as required. The main goal is: one child, one family, one plan (Min. OCW., 2011b) and the Inspectorate monitors the means, budgets and educational outcomes (ibid). The central question in Adequate Education is: what approach, attitude or instruction does this child require?
Learning or behaviour problems are perceived as ‘problems within the child’ and translated into the child’s ‘educational needs’. For example, a given child may need peers who accept that they react differently or activities that are structured in small steps, in order to reach the set targets (Pameijer & Beukering, 2008). Every detail is recorded in group plans, individual learning or behaviour plans, the pupil-monitoring system, reports and evaluation sheets. Summarized, the average Dutch teacher has to work with groups that have become
increasingly diverse in terms of the cultural, educational and behavioural needs of individual pupils, while also being required to increase every child’s educational achievements. These new demands clearly require teachers to gain new knowledge and develop new skills to support pupil learning, holistically. Instead,teachers typically focus narrowly on performance - the knowledge and skills pupils must acquire to achieve well in national tests - believing this will enhance their instruction, while specialists, such as SEN coordinators (SENCOs), peripatetic teachers, speech therapists, behaviour specialists and social workers with ‘specialized
knowledge’ take responsibility for addressing the range of complex pupil needs. Specialists, teachers and parents study data derived from the pupil-monitoring system and negotiate the ‘threatening factors’ and ‘compensating factors’, in order to answer the question: ‘what does this child need’?
Being one of these specialists, I take part in these negotiations every week, but also being a practitioner, I experience what is happening in the classroom. I notice that sometimes the individual needs of one pupil conflict with the individual needs of another or the needs of the group, thus creating a complex situation for the teacher who, without sufficient knowledge about groups, has to respond to these situations.
Although Adequate Education focuses on the requirements of every individual child (Pameijer & Beukering, 2008), in the majority of Dutch primary schools, the education is organized in groups (by year, ability or instruction), suggesting a pragmatic, organisational rationale for the ‘group’. In reality, however, a group in a classroom consists of individuals who all require their individual needs to be taken into consideration when planning the education of this group and this requires expertise that most mainstream teachers currently appear to lack.
1.4 Aims and context of the research
This research was carried out in four classrooms, ranging from Year 5 (eight year olds) to Year 7 (eleven year olds), within diverse schools, varying from a small village school to a large city school, in mainstream primary education. Mainstream, in the context of this research, includes children identified as needing special (primary) education (see Appendix A) and peripatetic supervision and, as a result of increasing migration, those from different nationalities and educational backgrounds. This makes complex demands on mainstream teachers, not only in
dealing with the academic challenges or knowledge of different behaviour or learning disorders, but also in dealing with behaviour in the group, as a result ofthis cultural and linguistic diversity.
As in the majority of primary schools in the Netherlands, in the participating schools, children are brought together based on their date of birth and are called ‘groups’. Four of these ‘groups’ were the focus of this study, from a range of year groups, with pupils from 8 – 9 years to 11 - 12 years. The educational concept of ‘the group’ might have consequences for how these ‘groups’ function and for the educational process of individual children. Since the main topic of this research is the role of the group on social behaviour in the primary classroom, my primary focus is whether theoretical knowledge of groups (Smith, 2018) can be applied in an educational context, supporting teachers to enhance children’s social competencies and ability to learn and reducing the negative behaviours as described by Miedema (2002) on page 2. I am primarily interested in how a group in education could be defined from a ‘group’ perspective. For example, in writing their group plans, to what extent do teachers actually plan their ‘group’? What is important when planning a group and why? Also in this research I want to better understand what motivates pupils to change their behaviour and how that relates to school policy and national policy.
1.4.1 Research design and research questions
This research uses a collaborative action-research framework, conducted in groups led by other teachers, in which I have offered myself in partnership as a facilitator for the groups’ learning processes. One of the attractive features of Action Research is that it is a group activity: it involves planning and evaluating interventions, for the purpose of improving an aspect of education (Cohen et al., 2017). This study aimed to explore the role of the group on the social behaviour amongst children aged eight to twelve years old; to investigate the teachers’ concept of ‘group’ and how this affected their practice; and to enhance the effectiveness of groupwork interventions in education, such as involving the group in finding solutions for the problems experienced in the classroom. The research employed an
interpretive approach, focusing on micro-analysis of video recordings taken during the interventions.
Thus, this research explored the extent to which engaging with the class as a group affects the problems related to the social behaviour teachers currently experience in the classroom, and what knowledge, skills, attitudes and habits teachers need to acquire, in order to engage with their class as a group. There are four research questions:
1) To what extent can the perceived discrepancy between the findings of the pupil- monitoring system on the effectiveness of pupils’ social skills and teachers’ perceptions of their pupils’ social skills be explained by the concept of ‘group’ in education?
2) In what ways can engaging with the class as a group affect the problems related to pupils’ social behaviour that teachers currently experience?
3) What knowledge, skills, attitudes and habits do teachers need to acquire in order to engage with their class as a group?
4) In what ways might a different conceptualisation of the ‘group’ contribute to the educational and social outcomes, specified in the core objectives (SLO, 2006)?
1.4.2 Profile of the participating groups3
The group investigated in School A was Year 7 (ten-eleven year olds). The school is set in a rural location and had 181 pupils divided into eight groups (Year 1 – 8). The school is
predominantly ‘white’4 and the majority of the parents could be described as ‘working class’. The group in School B was a Year 7 group situated in a large city school, located in a new residential area in a higher socio economic context than School A. 913 pupils are divided into 33 groups. The school has predominantly ‘white’ children and the majority of the parents are well educated.
School C is a small, city-centre school with 85 pupils divided into four groups. The population is multi-ethnic although a slight majority are white and of Dutch origin. The educational
background of the parents is also mixed, varying from having finished primary school to having higher education qualifications. Although there are multiple religions represented, the school has a Catholic denomination5. The group included in the research was Year 5/6 (eight – ten year olds).
School D is a small city school with 121 pupils divided over six groups. The population is mixed, with different ethnicities and religions. The majority of pupils either have a Turkish or North-African background. Although more than half of the pupils are Muslim, the school has a Catholic denomination. The group involved in the research was a Year 6/7 (nine - eleven year olds).
Since the inspectorate reports only provide information about the quality of the education, for example, the educational results, effective use of learning time, pedagogical climate, adaptive instruction, or the pupil-monitoring system used (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2012), the above school data was supplied by the head teachers.
1.5 Summary
In this chapter I have pictured the Dutch educational system. I have also presented my professional position and motivation, initiating this study. I have also introduced the research questions that informed this study, and the profile of the groups participating in this study. The
3 School data was supplied by the head teachers
4 For an explanation of the use of the terminology ‘white or black schools’, see Appendix A 5 Also see Appendix A
thesis is divided into five further chapters. Chapter two presents a review of the literature on 1) different perspectives on the pedagogical obligation of education; 2) different views on ‘groups’; 3) probable causes for difficult behaviour; 4) group development; and 5) possible cultural influences on student learning and behaviour. In chapter three, the research design and methodological approach are discussed, with my researcher positionality. Analysis of the data, and my decisions to present the data in themes are reported in chapter four. In chapter five, the research questions are discussed. Conclusions, limitations of the study, the
contribution to knowledge, implications of the study and recommendations for new lines of inquiry, and reflection on methods and process are reported in chapter six.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. (Dewey, 1897:78)
Since the focus of this study is on the role of the group on the learning process of individuals, the starting point for this literature review and theoretical framework of this thesis is social pedagogy that has developed from the theories of philosophers and educationalists, from Dewey (1915) and Freire (1970) to Vygotsky (1978). Dewey argued that children live in groups that can be used as important resources, not only for the growth and development of the individual, but also for the communities they live in, and ultimately for society: “A society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims” (2001:10). Dewey believed all concepts, for example democratic understanding and values, could not be simply handed over from one generation to the next, but had to be learned anew in each generation. Dewey (ibid) rightly criticised the theory of behaviourism, prevalent at that time, since he argued that children are not passive recipients of knowledge, but take an active part in the process of their own learning. Indeed he believed that children learn best through engaging directly with their environment, through what is now known as ‘experiential learning’.
Freire (1970), criticised what he called ‘the banking concept’ of education: the teacher as a subject of action, depositing knowledge in his objects of action, his students. After time, this knowledge should show result or ‘interest’ in the form of grades or certificates. Instead, Freire advocated the problem-posing concept of education, starting in the ‘here-and-now’. Korczak (cited in Cameron & Moss, 2011) in his turn argued that children are human beings as opposed to human becomings, in other words, not the people of the future but people of today.
Robinson (2011) also criticizes the fact that education still tells children that, if they do well in school, they will achieve better (paid) jobs in the future, instead of citing current benefits to them. Even at present, the Dutch Ministry of Education indicates that education is for the future by encouraging pupils to attain a ‘basic qualification’ since they write: “With a basic qualification you have a better chance of finding a job” (Rijksoverheid, 2018).
Language is the device for communication; it is the tool through which one individual comes to share ideas and feeling of others. When treated simply as a way of getting individual information, or as a means of showing off what one has learned, it loses its social motive and end (1897:79).
Vygotsky (1978) also emphasized the reciprocal relationship between language and thinking in the process of learning. Language makes dialogue possible (and vice versa): through dialogue, shared understandings, discussion of alternative possible solutions, and achieving agreement can be established. According to Vygotsky, such social interaction is essential for constructing knowledge and understanding because the child internalises cognitive tools, used first on the interpsychological plane, which subsequently form the basis for intrapsychological reflection and logical reasoning. The most important tool for these processes is language. Vygotsky argued that, when children were allowed to discuss and argue, interaction not only leads to a more active and independent ownership of knowledge, but also to ‘interthinking’ when they combine their intellects, generating fresh ideas. However, recent Vygotskyan theorists, such as Mercer and Littleton (2007) have argued that, although in European classrooms children are set to work in groups, they are typically not enabled to work as groups or given instruction into how to achieve this.
Lewin (cited in Smith, 2001) deepened our understanding of the relationship between social interaction and learning, identifying how the tension between the perceptions of the self and of the environment influence the behaviour of individuals and groups. He argued that, in order to understand behaviour, the whole ‘lifespace’ within which people act, had to be taken in consideration. According to Doel & Kelly (2014:56), Lewin coined the term ‘group dynamics’, resulting from the interactions that occur within a group, defined as:
The forces that move, change or influence individual behaviour in the group, the behaviour of the group as a whole, or have an impact on the development of the group.
In summary, in social pedagogy, learning is seen as a social activity as opposed to an individual activity, contrasting with Adequate Education in the Netherlands, where the central question is: ‘what does this child need to reach the set targets?’ and in which the learning outcomes of the individual pupils only are carefully monitored. The broad view on learning of social
pedagogy will be used as a theoretical framework in the current study, given the importance of group interaction, group dynamics and language as a tool for (social) learning, since one of the
goals of this study is to explore to what extent teachers engaging with the class as a group might impact on pupils’ negative social behaviour.
2.1 Learning versus teaching
To deepen understanding of social pedagogy, it is helpful to go back to the original definitions of education, school and pedagogy. The word ‘education’ derives from the Latin words educere (stretching and leading away from ignorance) and educare (growing and raising), (van Dale etymological dictionary, 1997:248). These definitions suggest that the process of educating is aimed at the needs of the learner. For many centuries, formal education has taken place in schools. The word ‘school’ derives from the Greek word scholè (free time). The original meaning is ‘time in between’; time not spent in the family and/or in public life; a transitional phase between childhood and adulthood in which children are made acquainted with what adults think is important and necessary to know to be able to participate in society (Berding & Pols, 2014). Meirieu (2004) states that a school is an institute with a pedagogical mission: handing over knowledge and tools to the next generation to enable them to safeguard their own future, as well as the future of the world.
There are different ways to interpret what this ‘pedagogical mission’ should look like, depending on the definition of pedagogy. The Anglo-Saxon definition is: the science of teaching (Oxford English Dictionary: 1975:628). Thus, Alexander (2004:11) defines pedagogy as: “What one needs to know, and the skills one needs to command, in order to make and justify the different kinds of decisions of which teaching is constituted”. Teaching is defined as: to give instruction; to cause; to give knowledge to somebody (Oxford English Dictionary, 1975:903), suggesting an activity from the teacher that causes the learning of the learner. On the other hand, the Dutch definition of pedagogy is: “the science of raising children” (van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 1992:2256). This definition suggests that pedagogy includes all those involved with raising children, parents and teachers. However, there are tensions between Dutch Teacher Training Colleges being called ‘Pedagogical Academies’ and the original meaning of the word pedagogy, which emphasises a broader community of pedagogues: pedagogy is ‘to lead the child’ (van Dale etymological dictionary, 1997:652) and derives from the Greek word Paidagōgeō: Pais (child) and Agōgos (leader, guide). Although being a slave, the pedagogue was a member of the household, thus being in close contact with parents (Smith, 2009).
Thus, the original definitions of education, school and pedagogy suggest a holistic
understanding of education, incorporating a concern for individual growth and development, and for the community and society in which the individual is growing up, and the
interrelationship between individual and society. In this vein, Pestalozzi (cited in Smith, 2012) emphasised that the aim is to educate the whole child, addressing head, heart and hands and taking place in a social context, while enabling children to be free to pursue their own interests and to draw their own conclusions. Dewey (1897:77) also believed that learning is a social activity that “comes through the stimulation of the child’s powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself” and Vygotsky (1978) viewed all learning as socially
mediated. In other words, learning takes place through experiencing and interacting with others. These others can be adults as well as their peers in the group.
2.2 School, society and social skills
According to Turkenburg (2005), school and society are communicating vessels: when there are problems in society, politicians as well as the community, view education as the way to solve these problems. In recent years, education in the Netherlands has increasingly become more responsible for dealing with potential social problems, such as children’s safety, inclusion, obesity, alcohol abuse and integrating different cultures as a result of rapid
migration patterns (Onderwijsraad, Education Counsil, 2008). Hämäläinen (cited in Cameron & Moss, 2011:14) has argued that the pioneers of social pedagogy too attempted to find
educational solutions for social problems, such as poverty or inequality, although not by making these merely educational problems, but by confronting them.
Significantly, in 2006, citizenship was added to the attainment targets for Dutch primary education, not as a separate subject, but as a general objective of the curriculum with the aim of teachers and children practising democratic principles in the classroom (SLO, 2014). This aim appears to align with the philosophy of social pedagogy since this is also based on promoting and enhancing children’s rights:
The right to meaningful participation in decisions affecting people’s lives is a cornerstone that enables people to empower themselves by gaining more ownership and feeling respected. Meaningful participation in a social pedagogic relationship is always a social and inclusive process, about engaging in dialogue
as equal human beings exploring different perspectives (Cameron & Moss, 2011:47).
However, the government has set attainment targets for citizenship and the general idea is that schools have the obligation to teach pupils how democracy works, teach children what the rules are and what norms and values are important (Platform Onderwijs 2032, 2016). From an ethical perspective, Topolski (2008) questions whether the classroom is an appropriate place to create citizens since there is no consensus on what exactly a good citizen is, and therefore it is impossible to teach. Moreover, Topolski also critiques the ideological basis of such a policy, challenging the assumption that the solution for problems in society can be solved in school, since in fact these ‘problems’ (for example, poverty or inequality) are often symptoms of political crisis that need structural solutions. In this vein, Vandenbroeck et al. (2011) also argue that pedagogues are given excessive social responsibilities when there is a crisis in, for example, social cohesion in society, with policymakers transforming political problems into pedagogical questions and issues, attempting to make education responsible for solving societal problems.
As argued by Lagerweij & Lagerweij-Voogt (2004), the most successful way for governments to make education responsible for solving problems in society is by implementing new laws, steering reforms through a cost-recovery system or providing schools with extra means and facilities for school experiments or development of projects. According to Foucault (1991), modern governments refuse to acknowledge that poverty, inequality and associated problems are caused by structural issues that need radical, structural solutions, for example, a rejection of the neo-liberal support of the market and global capitalism. Instead, governments transfer responsibility for problems in society like bullying, obesity, or the pluriform society to
education.
Growing attention in the media about the increasing number of complaints about bullying, sometimes resulting in pupils’ suicides, forced the Dutch government to take action, resulting in the 2015 Social Safety Act (PO raad, 2014). This Act delegates responsibility for preventing all forms of bullying to schools, which can now be held legally responsible if there is insufficient proof of preventive actions taken, such as: offering social skills lessons, having an anti-bullying protocol, having a school confidante, and monitoring pupils’ feelings of safety and wellbeing twice a year. The inspectorate monitors whether, and how schools live up to these rules (ibid). However, the corresponding decision-making power is not actually delegated. Schools and governing bodies are forced to govern themselves according to the arrangements set down by
the government. Through benchmarking, the government creates conditions in which schools and/or governing bodies are forced to act in certain ways in order to achieve a given
benchmark (Lagerweij & Lagerweij-Voogt, 2004).
Similarly, schools should not imitate governments’ transfer of responsibility for social problems to individuals. Bullying is a group process (van Engelen, 2014) and simplistic solutions, such as an anti-bullying protocol or an anti-bullying contract for the group, will have little effect (ibid). Only teacher knowledge about how groups form and develop and thus, a radical
reconceptualization of classroom relationships, can help to prevent bullying (van Engelen, 2014; Malekoff, 2014). However, this is not an important subject in teacher training courses (Luitjes & de Zeeuw-Jans, 2017; Miedema, 2002). Instead, a range of social skills methods and/or anti-bullying programmes have entered the educational field and in many schools, citizenship and social skills education are discrete lessons, taught separately from other subjects, rather than as a component of the total education, with regular tests to establish if the educational goals have been achieved. These lessons are crudely regarded as the cure for what is wrong in society, and the tests are designed to measure the progress of these cures (de Regt, 2010). Vandenbroeck et al. (2011:65), however, argue that dismissing social problems by making them merely educational problems is: “inevitably also dismissing the most vulnerable: those who cannot participate in the definition of the problems they are supposed to have”. They advocate confronting social problems and defining a social pedagogical perspective as a way of “continually re-examining in participatory ways what the problem might be and whether our pedagogical practices question or confirm prevailing understandings of the problem” (2011:54).
Although in social pedagogy, the pedagogue is viewed as acting as an ‘upbringer’ on behalf of society, Diestersweg (cited in Smith, 2009) one of its ‘founders’, advocated that schooling must be separated from church and politics and turned into a force for social change. This however, is a very complex issue in the Netherlands because of the freedom of education in Act 23 of the Constitution, whereby parents have the right to a school that agrees with their religious and other philosophies (Onderwijsraad, 2016; see Appendix A). In 2017, 70% of Dutch primary schools based their education on religious or philosophical convictions (CBS, 2017). Thus in such schools, pupils learn about other religions or philosophies through taught lessons, as opposed to working, playing, learning and living in a multi-ethnic community. Clearly, Act 23 causes tension with Act 1 of the Constitution that forbids all forms of discrimination.
2.3 The social obligation of education
Schools have the responsibility for equipping children with the knowledge and skills they need to participate in society, which are defined in the core objectives for the domain ‘Oriëntatie op jezelf en de wereld’ (‘personal and world orientation’, SLO, 2006). One set of key objectives states that pupils should learn how people relate to each other, how they solve problems and how they give meaning to their existence. Within this domain, primary education must also prepare children for their role as citizens in a democratic, constitutional state; therefore knowledge about, and insight into important values and standards, such as respect and tolerance, and knowing how to act accordingly, are preconditions for coexistence (SLO, 2006:48). The core objectives also clearly state that schools are free to choose by what methods they intend to attain these set targets.
In Dutch primary education the social obligation is translated into social skills lessons.
Commissioned by the government, the Central Institute for Test Development (CITO) evaluated the results of the social education of children in the last year of primary school (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012). Although 90% of the teachers that took part in this evaluation study (n=137), agreed that schools should pay attention to the development of pupils’ social and emotional skills, 76% of teachers stated that they preferred the use of a course-book or programme for teaching these skills because they offer clear goals and lessons for the entire school year. Teachers also stated that taking a systematic approach while working at the social
competencies of pupils allows them to monitor the pupils’ social development more closely since most programmes also offer a pupil-monitoring system (ibid). It seems obvious that monitoring systematically has become more important since the implementation of the Social Safety Act (PO raad, 2014).
Schools are free to choose what teaching methods they use for reaching the attainment targets. Almost one third of Dutch primary schools use the Kanjer (Tiger) training
(Kanjertraining, 2014) to prevent or reduce unwanted behaviours and to develop social skills. This programme is based on Bandura’s (1986) theory of social learning, which involves children practising responses in role-play to five social skills that have to be learned. Also children are encouraged to give (positive) feedback to peers (tips and tops) and moral dilemmas are discussed in class (NJI, 2014). The Kanjer training is offered in planned lessons on the
curriculum and also contains behaviourist influences, such as motivating children to behave in a desired way through positive reinforcement, ignoring unwanted behaviour, and teaching children how to handle difficult situations, by offering them strategies in small steps (ibid).
There are, however, certain limitations to teaching social skills this way. Firstly, when for example practising behaviours in role-play as suggested in the Kanjer training, it is
questionable if pupils exhibit behaviours they use in real-life situations. Pupils often do not feel at ease in role-play and believe that people’s behaviour in this context is not representative of their real social behaviour (Kuhlemeier et at., 2012). Additional problems include facilitating role-play, which is a skill teachers need to learn, and that preparing and using role-play is time consuming (ibid).
Additionally, when acting out a situation that happened days ago, there is no longer any connection between the concrete experience itself and the emotions and feelings that came with it. Therefore, Pink (2016) argues that instead of ‘what if’ situations, meaningful situations in the present should be used because they contain motivation and passion and give pupils autonomy. Pink (2016) also warns that programmes designed to stimulate good behaviour can be counterproductive and might even lead to negative behaviour, such as deceit and short-sighted thinking because the motivation for behaving as desired by authorities, in this instance teachers, derives from extrinsic instead of intrinsic motivation. Therefore Dewey (1915) and Rogers (1979) argue that schools should not be places where children are taught artificial lessons that they might or might not be able to use in life, but places that are of importance for the children right now. Children do experience problems such as exclusion, bullying, conflict and so on. When problems like this occur, children need guidance in dealing with these problems immediately, not by teaching or telling them what they might do in hypothetical situations. In this vein, Doel and Kelly (2014:84) rightly argue that one of the drawbacks of curriculum-driven activities, such as social skills lessons planned on the time-table, is “that it is driven by the curriculum, rather than by the needs of the group”. Needs of a group or
individuals in the group cannot be planned according to a schedule, they appear when something happens.
According to Arendt (2004), teaching can deny the fact that children are developing human beings. Adults must help children develop democratic values at their level, instead of teaching them how problems in the adult world must be dealt with, abstractly. Doel and Kelly (2014) additionally state that children themselves can create totally different solutions as their reasoning differs from adults’, and Schmuck & Schmuck (2001) note the importance of peer-group life in developing democratic knowledge, skills and attitudes. Instead of viewing their role as dispensing knowledge, delivering the curriculum, and arranging instruction so that
pupils will learn, teachers should be more sensitive towards pupils’ personal needs and the peer group’s interaction (ibid).
This suggests that social skills should be learned in concrete situations rather than in discrete lessons, planned on the curriculum, even if evaluating the impact of these might be more complex. In other words, if “the school should be used as a training ground for practising democratic principles” (Bron et al., 2009:11; Visser, 2018:15), real ‘here and now’ problems in children’s lives should be used, for example, starting with a child saying “I feel excluded” or “I feel bullied”, as opposed to taught lessons about anonymous, fictive scenarios. Prinsloo (2012:136) also advocates confronting and discussing differences because it “it forces introspection and change”. Problems should be discussed in the group, firstly because they are, almost always, group, not individual problems; and secondly because through dialogue and discussion, ideas and feelings can be shared, possible solutions can be found and
agreements can be established. Or as Prinsloo (ibid) states, discussion enhances awareness of own beliefs, prejudices, and values.
2.4 What motivates children to change their behaviour
As elaborated by Ryan & Deci (2000), people can be self-motivated or externally regulated. This means that people may be willing to change their behaviour because they feel the need for doing so themselves or because they will be rewarded or punished for their behaviour, by others. Ryan & Deci found social and environmental factors that can enhance or diminish feelings of competence and autonomy, such as: relatedness and security, rewards and punishments, positive or negative feedback, communication, challenges, and freedom for demeaning evaluations. They (ibid) argued that, by nature, young children are eager to learn, explore, master or assimilate because of their own desire to be able to do or know something, without being externally rewarded. This eagerness is referred to as ‘intrinsic motivation’ by Pink (2016) and Ryan & Deci (2000). With behaviour, children learn through experience, observation or because they are being taught by parents, siblings, peers, teachers or others. Therefore, Ryan & Deci (2000) argue that children are intrinsically motivated to learn how to act when their needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness will be satisfied.
In school, however, it is assumed that children need to be encouraged and cannot learn without guidance (Pink, 2016). As in other social settings, schools have certain behaviours and values which are prescribed and most of these (for example: no running in the hallways, or: no
